Muller-Paisner v. Tiaa
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111785
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiff Vera Muller-Paisner, as executrix of Dr. Mary Engel’s estate, sues TIAA and related entities for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, unjust enrichment, and rescission.
- Court previously held there was a fiduciary duty claim survivable; this opinion again analyzes whether such a duty existed and whether it was breached.
- Dr. Engel, an emphysema patient, was a long-time retirement-plan participant whose plans were administered by defendants; she chose an annuity option that would end payments at death, with no beneficiary.
- Defendants operated call centers and maintained records of conversations with Dr. Engel; several communications in 1999–2001 preceded and accompanied the annuity election.
- Dr. Engel elected a single life annuity with no guaranteed period and 100% of her funds annuitized; she was informed of the consequences, including lack of access to funds and no heirs.
- Court ultimately denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on fiduciary duty but grants defendants’ summary judgment, dismissing all claims because no breach of fiduciary duty was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a fiduciary duty existed between TIAA and Dr. Engel | Muller-Paisner asserts duty arose from relationship and public representations. | TIAA maintains no fiduciary duty existed; relationship was arm’s-length. | Genuine issue of fact; jury to decide existence of duty. |
| Whether TIAA breached any fiduciary duty | TIAA’s conduct and failure to disclose or inquire constituted misconduct. | No misconduct; no duty breached given relationship scope. | No breach shown; as a matter of law, no breach established. |
| Whether unjust enrichment can lie where fiduciary duty is not breached | Unjust enrichment should flow from inequitable benefit. | Contract governs; no unjust enrichment since agreement existed. | Dismissed; no basis without breach of fiduciary duty. |
| Whether rescission is available given fiduciary duty claims | Rescission should follow from breach. | Rescission premised on fiduciary breach, which fails. | Dismissed; rescission dependent on fiduciary breach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Kuhn, 90 N.Y.2d 266 (N.Y. 1997) (insurance context may create fiduciary duties; general rule against ongoing advisor duty)
- Birnbaum v. Birnbaum, 73 N.Y.2d 461 (N.Y. 1989) (duty of undivided loyalty; self-dealing concerns may arise in fiduciary relations)
- In re Mid-Island Hosp., Inc., 276 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2002) (fiduciary duty requires trust; arm's-length transactions generally not fiduciary)
- Dornberger v. Metro Life Ins. Co., 961 F. Supp. 506 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (jurisprudence allowing insurer-duty inquiries to proceed to discovery under certain allegations)
- Meinhard v. Salmon, 249 N.Y.458 (N.Y. 1928) (standard of fiduciary conduct; punctilio of honor)